Hello,
HTML minutes [1] available for the 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconf;
text is below. The text version does not have URIs in it.
_ Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-tag-summary
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
========================================================
W3C | TAG | Previous: 2 Dec teleconf | Next: 16 Dec
2002 teleconf
Minutes of 9 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference
Nearby: IRC log | Teleconference details ? issues
list ? www-tag archive
1. Administrative
1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL (Scribe), DO, DC, CL,
NW (also scribed), PC, IJ. Regrets: TB, RF.
2. Accepted 2 Dec minutes with correction that DC
action was to point tag, not www-tag to doc for
uriMediaType-9.
3. Accepted this agenda
4. Next meeting: 16 Dec 2002
5. Following meeting: 6 Jan 2003
1.1 Completed actions
* Action TB: Send proposed changes to SW slides to
tag@w3.org.
* Action NW: Create updated slides for XML 2002
presentation.
* Action IJ: Update SW slides with pointer to NW
slides (and refer to TB comments).
* Action IJ: 2002/11/25: Update
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 to indicate waiting on
WSDL WG.
1.2 Meeting planning
* Next TAG ftf: 6-7 Feb 2003 in Irvine, CA (USA)
[Not discussed]
* SW: I am still setting up xlink meeting.
Action SW: Contact the Hypertext Coordination
group, Vincent Quint chair, as part of organizing
meeting.
2. Technical
1. uriMediaType-9
2. namespaceDocument-8
3. xmlProfiles-29
2.1 uriMediaType-9
IJ notes that TBL did not minute who said what in
some of what follows.
1. uriMediaType-9:
1. Action DC 2002/12.02: Point to this draft on
www-tag: "A Registry of Assignments using
Ubiquitous Technologies and Careful
Policies."
[timMIT]
Dan: I got endorsement of this from Tim Bray
and Norm W.
One question is, publish in TAG's name?
A TAG finding reference is missing
Should one bring up with IETF-W#C meeting
first? No, March is too long
I propose that the TAG adopt this in being
co-author with Mark darft-w3c-registries*
Note that darft-w3c is a possibility since
last IETF-W3C telcon.
Anyone want to discuss, object, etc?
RESOLVED: The TAG adopts A Registry of
Assignments using Ubiquitous Technologies and
Careful Policies as suitable for publication
as draft-w3c*
Stuart: Thanks to Dan and to Mark B
Dan: One thing to discuss:
This came up under iss 9, the idea of URIs for
media typed.
[Ian]
TBL: "Media type document"
[timMIT]
If we follow this, we will probably end up
with a URI for text/html with no #
TimBL: This is OK if we really can just treat
it as a URI for a media type document, not for
an abstract concept.
In principle.
Chris arrives.
2.2 namespaceDocument-8
1. namespaceDocument-8
1. Action NW 2002/11/18: Take a stab at
indicating pros and cons for the various
RDDL/RDF/Xlink designs arising from TB's
RDDL challenge.
1. RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray.
2. RDDL Proposal from Chris Wilper
[timMIT]
stu: I haven't seen many responses to Tim
Bray's challenge
[DanCon]
http://www.w3.org/2002/11/rddl/ex1.xml <-
http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2002/11/25/2002-11-25
.html#1038249302.320672
^timbl's proposal, I think
[timMIT]
TimBL: I had one but forgot to send it.
[Ian]
CL: What happens if no satisfactory replies to
contest?
[timMIT]
Paul: I have been talking to a lot of people
about this, and I really wonder about whether
we are right to look for just one format.
[Ian]
IJ: I think the goal was to suggest one
approach, not the only approach. The goal of
this effort was to avoid saying "do this"
without providing any example of how.
[timMIT]
TBL: The Web wasn't designed like that, or we
would still have HTML 0.9. Should we have many
posisbilities, and guidelines about what
should be there?
Ian: My understadning was that we are not
proposing *the* solution but *one* solution -
to show there is one which works. See minutes
of 12 Feb 2002 meeting: "Resolution is
incomplete. Consensus points from 12 Feb ftf
meeting are:
1. Namespace URIs should be dereferencable (to
find useful explanatory material).
2. The TAG has not yet reached consensus on the
nature of the material at the end of a
namespace URI. The TAG discussed the value
of human readable materials, schemas, and
indirections to useful adjuncts."
Chris: Saying it is human readable is easy,
and if we don't need it to be machine
readable.
[Ian]
IJ: We did say it should be machine
readable....
[DanCon]
folks should feel free to use IRC as a
parallel channel, as far as I'm concerned.
[timMIT]
Chris: ... then you don't need much more.
Norm: I didn't think we were defining *the*
format, but we were defining a really good
one.
I thought our excercise was to produce a good
one, but not insist.
[PaulC]
But we did not settle on only one image format
e.g. GIF or else we would have never been able
to permit the usuage of JPEG and SVG.
[Ian]
DC: RDDL is a distraction. It suggests that
XHTML, RDF, and XML Schema don't get the job
done.
[timMIT]
TimBL: I think there is something to be gained
from a standard here to stop grag.
[Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to say that XHTML, RDF, and
XML Schema already work fine; RDDL is a
distraction
[timMIT]
DanC: I think a good appraoch to stick an xml
schema there and an html document.
[DanCon]
Chris disagreed with DanC
[timMIT]
Paul: It is a tradeoff - if we had
standardized on GIF would we never had had
PNG?
DavidO: I was always unhappy with saying there
should be a document there. This gets confused
with what it is. Saying that xml schema would
be a good thing there IMHO is a bad thing. If
we can't get to resolution for what the best
format is, then I would prefer us to say there
should NOT be a document available.
[DanCon]
gee... what's the best format for images? JPEG
or SVG? surely it depends on the image, no,
daveo?
[timMIT]
Chris; I was not suggetsing that RDDL should b
the *one true* format. As I said, if
human-readable is all we want, then we have no
problem.
[DaveO]
Dan, this is an argument we had almost a year
ago.
[timMIT]
As for putting a schema there, clearly that
would [scribe fails to catch the logic of
Chris' argument]
[Ian]
TBL: Are you saying that putting a scheme
there is bad?
CL: Yes.
[timMIT]
CL: I am saying that having something which
sits there and points to it vastly better than
content negotiating.
[DanCon]
I disagree.
[DaveO]
DO agrees with CL
[Zakim]
TimMIT, you wanted to respond to PaulC re SVG
[DanCon]
we have not decided ANYTHING, actually. why is
anybody surprised that the discussion
continues?
[Ian]
We have consensus minuted at earlier meetings.
I am surprised.
[DanCon]
"Resolved: The point about URIs should have
dereferencable material at their end applies
to namespaces."
-- http://www.w3.org/2002/02/12-tagmem-irc
<-
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocu
ment-8
[timMIT]
Tim: I thought we had come to a consensus that
itis good to have a document , and that human
readable is useful and machine readable are
good.
Ian: There was never any "must". No one
suggested that asingle format will meet all
needs.
[The TAG attempts to establish what we had
already agreed]
[Ian]
From xml namespaces spec, 2:
"It is not a goal that it be directly usable
for retrieval of a schema (if any exists). An
example of a syntax that is designed with
these goals in mind is that for Uniform
Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should
be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in
such a way as to achieve these same goals."
[timMIT]
DO: I understood: we were going to come up
with a format, and RDDL was a good start, but
my assumption was that we would have a
standard before we recommended putting
anything there.
[PaulC]
My problem is with people saying "the format"
instead of "a format" or "an example format".
[timMIT]
Ian: David, do you need one single format, or
a general receommendation of one among
several?
DO: Either
[DanCon]
My problem is any work that suggests sticking
an XML schema or RDF schema there isn't OK
will get an objection from me.
[Ian]
IJ: I just want to be sure nobody expects it
to be "the format".
[DanCon]
any work that suggests sticking an XML schema
or RDF schema there isn't OK will get an
objection from me.
[timMIT]
Chris: We say that it meeets the criteria,
which are not well-defined.
[DaveO]
I will object to XML Schema being OK.
[timMIT]
PaulC: We should call it "only an example
format"
DO: Do you think that the issue about which
vocabulary should use HTML should be a "best
practice"?
TimBL: URIs are the only thing we insist on
[for the Web]. We don't insist on any data
formats.
Paul: Sounds like we are design this like
everything else on the web, that you can use
something else if you want to.
Stu: TimBray not being here may be a problem.
He and Jonathan had been working on the
document. I still find there is a problem with
ambiguity - namespace vs namespace document. I
can see a solution here having a Namespace
Docuement being identfied, and that indirectly
identifying a namespace.
[DaveO]
SW, I share your concern.
[timMIT]
Norm: I never thought that RDDL would be part
of the namespace rec. I thought we would
publish it as a separate finding.
Chris: me too.
TimBL: me too
DOl: I mean 'effectively" chaneg the namespace
rec, not actually.
Ian: I hoped that if the NS rec were revised,
then it would be more explicit about it being
OK or good to put a document there. It is
easier to incorporatea tag finding into a
namespaces revision if the language is clearer
about utility of putting something at the end
of a namespaces URI; it's easier to read one
doc instead of 2.
timbL: I agree.
SKW: Any change of TAG attitude here?
Norm: Not without TimBray
SKW: I will update TimBray on our discussion.
2.3 xmlProfiles-29
1. xmlProfiles-29
1. Action DO 2002/12/02: Talk to XMLP WG about
this new issue.
2. Action NW 2002/12/09: Talk to XML Core WG
about this new issue
[timMIT]
Chris: people have been discussing entities.
TimBray sugegsted removing external entities
but it wasn't clear MathML would be helped.
[Ian]
[Discussion about entities/MathML]
[timMIT]
DanC: I know people on MathML who di dnot want
to use entities ... they had a <mchar
name="..."/> before but it went away. See
email from DanC on this topic.
[timMIT]
Norm: The i18n folks pushed back on mchar as
yet another way
[DanCon]
See email from David Carlisle, on why mchar
went away.
[timMIT]
TimBL: If schema allowed one to define
character entities?
DanC: Why not use elements?
____? Can't use em in attributes.
Norm: Substring XML discussion was driven by
XMLP group profiling out "internal subsets".
DanC: round tripping.
... is something was serialized with &foo; do
you have to write it out like that?
[Zakim]
Stuart, you wanted to ask about background
from XMLP
[timMIT]
SKW: The XMLP -- do we need to respond to
them?
DO: We could say, Thanks - good rationale.
ACTION SW: Thanks XMLP WG
[timMIT]
SKU: Are we on XML Core WG ground here?
DaveO: don't understand the question about
being in scope for XML core. It is in scope as
I understand their charter under examining
possible future version.
[Norm]
dir
[timMIT]
Norm; I think we should invide Paul Grosso to
a TAG meeting.
PaulC: I agree. People have been using
"profile" and 'subsetting" in confusing ways.
[Norm]
CL: I agree with PaulC, some people have been
thinking that 2.0 would be smaller and others
that it would be larger. It doesn't say
anything explicit in the charter about
profiling or a subset. But equally, it says
they could do a 2.0 if they think it's
advisable. Perhaps, they're telling us they
think it's inadvisable: We should try to herd
this discussion in useful directions.
PC: Several people have put words in Paul
Grosso's mouth along the lines of trying to
decide what the boundaries are. We could do it
by email, or here.
CL: I think it would be very useful.
SW: I'd be happy to invite Paul Grosso. We
probably need to show some leadership in
formulating what the issue is
DaveO: I think the TAG should make up it's
mind about what it thinks of
profiling/subsetting, etc. For example, if the
Core WG says it's a sucky idea, that might be
one response, then we should think about
whether we would agree or disagree with that.
I don't want to couple what the TAG thinks
about this issue with what the Core WG thinks.
SW: Ahead or in parallel with meeting with
Paul
[PaulC]
That was brutely Norm volunteering to take the
"high ground".
[Norm]
ACTION NW: Write up a first draft of the TAG
position
ACTION SW: Invite Paul Grosso to a future
meeting
2.1 Postponed
1. Status of URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27.
Relation to Character Model of the Web (chapter
4)? See text from TimBL on URI canonicalization
and email from Martin in particular. See more
comments from Martin.
1. Action MD 2002/11/18: Write up text about
IRIEverywhere-27 for spec writers to include
in their spec.
2. Action CL 2002/11/18: Write up finding for
IRIEverywhere-27 (from TB and TBL, a/b/c),
to include MD's text.
CL: Both actions pending.
2. binaryXML-30
1. Action CL 2002/12/02: Write up problem
statement about binary XML; send to www-tag.
3. fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in
XML.
4. xlinkScope-23 (5 minutes)
1. Action SW 2002/11/18: Organize a
special-interest teleconf for discussion of
this issue on linking. Pending; see email
from SW (TAG-only).
2.2 Findings in progress, architecture document
See also: findings.
1. Findings in progress:
1. deepLinking-25
1. Action TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep
Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes.
2. URIEquivalence-15
1. Completed Action IJ 2002/1202: Action
IJ: Link to TB's "URI Comparison" from
findings page.
2. 6 Dec 2002 Editor's Draft of Arch Doc (new):
IJ: Is it ok for me to publish Editor's Drafts at
will? TAG agrees to publish early, often.
CL: Be sure to highlight any controversial
changes in Editor's Drafts.
1. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3
based on resolutions of 18 Nov 2002 ftf
meeting.
2. Action DC 2002/11/04: Review "Meaning" to
see if there's any part of self-describing
Web for the arch doc. Done.
3. Complete review of TBs proposed principles
CP9, CP10 and CP11
________________________________________________
Ian Jacobs for Stuart Williams and TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/12/09 23:01:25 $